Yup, that's what it is with me Although before if it was worthy of a 2cd, i wouldn't have released it... now i do... hooray!

The thing is with candyman too, i actually did 1/6ths, 2cd unsplit, and 4x 1/3rd dvdrs for it. I deleted the 1/6th outright, the 2cd just wasn't up on the 1/3rds, and from i worked with the best set of filters to get something that was okay I knew i would never release the 1/6th anyway, but i was away from my computer for a week so i thought what the smeg

I would say, i can see the point on obscure sequels and bmovies, you've really got to ask yourself, especially if there's no worthy 1cd rip, could the 1/6th size be more suitable

here here brother. In fact if that 1/6th Parents rip I did is almost dead, I should make a 1/3rd.

to me 1/6th is almost useless. On average I think 45 mins = 1/6th, so 4.5 hours on one dvd. Thats still tons of Seagal at full res!

720 width really calls for it anyway, and since thats actually LOW resolution nowadays.... I could have made better looking 1/3rd rips at ~672W I guess, which seems to be choice for 2CD.

Unless its Ator, it should be 1/3rd, IMO Ghoulies and Fri 13th Pt 7 deserve 1/3rd. And I also think VHS rips might benefit greatly being 640x# @ 1492MBs. the image might still seem crappy, but the actually ... uh emulation of the source picture is much closer.

Though some shit dvds like Caligula aren't even worth watching to begin with. And should be discarded.

Actually I do rate Candyman, as I stated in my earlier post "great film though it is", which is why I bought the big-box VHS, way before the days of DVD. I'll have to dig out the 1CD to check it but I just checked the specs in EMM, 656x320 doesn't bother me at all, I suspect the reason for pixellating is the 839k/s video bitrate. Plus it's NTSC which is crap.

I have already stated that the word abuse was too harsh in my original post and have since gone for over-the-top. The bugbear to me really is the use of AC3 where it just isn't needed, and isn't there a point at which throwing more video bitrate at xvid makes no difference?

Off-topic perhaps but I remember Ferox being slated on these boards for oversizing Aftermath and Genesis and being told the additional bitrate was wasted. Ferox was thinking of quitting due to the serious abuse he was receiving at Crazy-Mazeys at the time, and I pointed out that this would not happen at HHAH, then his rips get pulled to pieces here (much more so than I have been doing). OK, these were 2 shorts but it's the same principle.

Dog Soldiers and The Exorcist due to their age and running time respectively are probably worth 1/3. But Friday the 13th is another one I would dispute, again a great film, part 1 anyway, but the UK DVD is only just bigger than a DVD-5, it might fit on one if you strip out the additional audio tracks and trailer. If a DVD-9 compresses well to 1/3 then surely a DVD-5 compresses to 1/6?

Personally I think 576x### looks just fine on a 36" WS TV. I was criticised here for saying I prefer DVD-R for certain films, ie those nasties that I don't think are good enough to warrant buying the DVD, and where I have probably already bought the VHS. If it's so important to have a higher res than this then why not go for a DVD-R?

The reason why I was getting hot under the collar about this is the AOTN collection. Some of the films in this collection (pre-1976 in at least one case) have recently been released at 1/3 and I will not be downloading them in order to make them the primary rip. They can go in the collection as alternatives, and something tells me people will object to this.

Killingjokezzz knocked the nail on the head, if it was worth 1 CD before then do 1/6 now, if it were worth 2 CD then do 1/3. Simple.

Now to be really controversial. Some people joined this site and brought along some great highly sought after rips. And some people bring rehashes of what is already available, with the "added bonus of being higher quality".

The bugbear to me really is the use of AC3 where it just isn't needed, and isn't there a point at which throwing more video bitrate at xvid makes no difference?

The difference between AC3 and mp3 in size isn't really that big to me. The times I converted an ac3 track to a mp3 version I never really got that much extra space that it was worth it. Except maby with mono, but can't remember many rips I did that had mono. And with afr sizes I can afford that extra space for ac3. And don't have to bother with converting it to mp3.You're right about that there is a point where more bitrate doesn't help. But when using a higher resolution that point is further away then with a lower res. When using the correct settings you can have a very good looking rip from a dvd, which is as good as the original and sometimes even better looking. That is often not possible with a 1cd rip. 2cd can be as good but that's also 2 files.. And you're wasting space on dvd's. (old story.. etc.. default afr talk bladie bla bla... etc)

George Tatum wrote:

Dog Soldiers and The Exorcist due to their age and running time respectively are probably worth 1/3. But Friday the 13th is another one I would dispute, again a great film, part 1 anyway, but the UK DVD is only just bigger than a DVD-5, it might fit on one if you strip out the additional audio tracks and trailer. If a DVD-9 compresses well to 1/3 then surely a DVD-5 compresses to 1/6?

Mostly it's a matter of taste if you find it worth a 1/6 or 1/3. I'd rather have the best possible quality of a movie.About dvd-9 vs dvd-5, no. ws or fs, length of movie, ac3 5.1 or ac3 2.0, etcFor example the cotc series I did a while ago. a ws,90m,ac3 2.0 fitted perfectly in a 1/6 but some had a better audio track and if I wanted to keep that I'd to choose 1/3. Plus fs wouldn't fit in a 1/6 either, if I used the highest possible resolution. All things you have to take into consideration.

Not going to argue if these cotc movies were good or not, imo most of them were really crap of the purest form.But I thought if I'm going to do this series I might as well make them look as good as possible. Cause it wouldn't really be usefull releasing another release of these which has the same specs as older rips. And still don't have the look they could have.

George Tatum wrote:

Personally I think 576x### looks just fine on a 36" WS TV. I was criticised here for saying I prefer DVD-R for certain films, ie those nasties that I don't think are good enough to warrant buying the DVD, and where I have probably already bought the VHS. If it's so important to have a higher res than this then why not go for a DVD-R?

Firstly the size. Having 3 movies looking superbe on 1 dvd is imo far better than 1. And when they look as good as the dvd the choice is simple.

George Tatum wrote:

The reason why I was getting hot under the collar about this is the AOTN collection. Some of the films in this collection (pre-1976 in at least one case) have recently been released at 1/3 and I will not be downloading them in order to make them the primary rip. They can go in the collection as alternatives, and something tells me people will object to this.

Killingjokezzz knocked the nail on the head, if it was worth 1 CD before then do 1/6 now, if it were worth 2 CD then do 1/3. Simple.

Not that simple, what 1 finds to be worth only 1 cd an other find it can use a 1/3 dvd sized rip. If you want to use a higher res you can't just switch from 1cd to 1/6dvd. You'll often have a worse result than the 1cd version.

George Tatum wrote:

Now to be really controversial. Some people joined this site and brought along some great highly sought after rips. And some people bring rehashes of what is already available, with the "added bonus of being higher quality".

And that is bad? Giving people the option to download a better looking version? You make it sound like a bad thing Or is it bad that there are movies released which don't have a 1cd alternative which you would prefer?
Or are you saying that you prefer movies released that haven't been released yet or are rare to find?

I'm not saying that I don't enjoy or wouldn't download a 1cd of a rare movie I'd like to see. Only saying that if there is a better looking one (or uncut or whatever that makes it better) I prefer the better one.
Simply cause I can't buy all the movies I'd like to have.

IMO everyone got a point here in someway. What im missing up to now is that people have different opinions. A movie that someone else may find worthy of a 1 third DVD size rip (sorry my keyboard is fucking with me so the slashes and some other keys dont work) may seem to much for somebody else. This off course works the other way around aswell. So if the movie deserves to be ripped as a 1 sixth or 1 third DVD size rip it not only depends on the given specifications like sound and runtime etc. but also on the fact how much someone likes the movie and how bad they want to have it.

Having said this i think its good that multiple different rips are surfacing for the same movie. That way people can choose what rip they think is best to grab. I know i dont mind having some options on which one to pick

About giving rants on rips, i think that just comes with the so called job. If someone doesn;t like my rips they are free to tell me so. What im gonna do with the comments is all up to me.

Or are you saying that you prefer movies released that haven't been released yet or are rare to find?

That's exactly what I'm saying, although I was a bit blunt in how I said it. I was bemoaning the lack of really interesting rips recently, despite having 8000+ members, and that people these days seem more interested in replacing older rips with the new standards than in unearthing something rare. TBH I've seen very little of interest to me for months. I don't care if a rip is 1CD, 2CD, 1/3DVD or 1/6DVD as long as it's something I want. And re-rips of existing stuff is not what I want. Now if someone can find me Confessions of a Blue Movie Star aka the Evolution of Snuff, I don't care if it's a 1CD or a 20GB HD-DVD, I'm on it

2cd is as far as I am concerned an obsolete format, I don't like the break in viewing. Surely no one here is still using CD, I doubt many people are still on their first DVD-RW, I wore mine out and I'm a real lightweight compared to a lot of people here.

Or are you saying that you prefer movies released that haven't been released yet or are rare to find?

That's exactly what I'm saying, although I was a bit blunt in how I said it. I was bemoaning the lack of really interesting rips recently, despite having 8000+ members, and that people these days seem more interested in replacing older rips with the new standards than in unearthing something rare.

Replacing is easy, finding rare stuff is somewhat harder.If I find a rare movie, you can bet I'll rip it and I even prefer that over reripping an already known title.

George Tatum wrote:

Now if someone can find me Confessions of a Blue Movie Star aka the Evolution of Snuff, I don't care if it's a 1CD or a 20GB HD-DVD, I'm on it

Don't know that one, but if you want rare stuff maby I can make you happy with Slipstream. It's scifi though Or maby with all 6 Trancers?Or maby Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932), The Black Cat (1934), The Raven (1935), The Invisible Ray (1936), Black Friday (1940) Maby not really rare but haven't heard of them myself until a couple of weeks ago. Or something from the Hammer collection?There are some titles in that one that haven't been posted in here yet (afaik).

Well I could go on with a list, just trying to make a point that several people are working on rare stuff

George Tatum wrote:

As regards ac3 vs mp3, the difference between mp3 and ac3 is HUGE!

Maby I need to explain myself a bit more on that part.
I find the difference between a 40MB mp3 and a 100MB ac3 comparable to breadcrumbs. Sizewise!

Now to be really controversial. Some people joined this site and brought along some great highly sought after rips. And some people bring rehashes of what is already available, with the "added bonus of being higher quality".

Yeah, and most people who have joined bring absolutely nothing at all so yes that comment can be considered a little offensive to those of us who make an effort to do both. Furthermore why should it bother you that someone makes a better quality rip available? You're not obligated to download it. Also noone is obligating you to update this Nasties collection you have going with better/larger rips so that's a choice you have to make. If you chose not to update it with better rips then I'm sure nobody would lose a drop of sleep over it.

Also there is a finite number of films on this earth available so finding the absolute most rare titles can be extremely difficult at times - it seems too much emphasis is placed on the rarity of certain titles as well - yes it may be cool for bragging rites to say "Hey I've got such and such in my collection..." but in my experience rare does not always equal good. Quite the opposite, so many of the 'rare' films suck so bad that their obscurity is likely a result of this - faded into obscurity as a result of no demand to see them in the first place because they are quite simply terrible films - understand that this doesn't apply to all rare films, but it does apply to a hell of a lot of them in my opinion.

One other thing I need to get off my chest is with the 'exclusivity' (or the perception thereof) of releases is what at times seems to be a feeling of resentment among those who originally released a title say a few years ago and then someone releases the same title down the road pissing off the original ripper/group - this is so fucking stupid that it's not even funny. Again - in many cases updated rips are superior quality and what makes people think that everyone on p2p networks is going to hop on and even know about a Ferox rip from 2003 for example? Updated rips often give titles that have fallen off the p2p radar a renewed chance at life/spreading to those who havent seen them - don't forget HHAH, T3, FH, what have you are not all emcompassing and to think so is absolute ignorance - there are so many users out there beyond our little horror sites who are getting pulled in day after day into p2p and horror via p2p who know absolutely nothing about =STR=, video-man, etc. rips - unless they are searching for a particular title then it's not likely they'll ever discover those older rips on the networks to begin with. Hopefully this is all making some sense. It's just a bit of a concern I've had over the past few years.

To summarize, IMO there really is no harm to having updated, higher quality rips as ultimately the choice of grabbing a shit old 700 MB divx or a nice 1/3 dvd xvid lies with the p2p user.

George Tatum, not to discount any of the work you've either done on this site or the AOTN collection, but you also said that in the past several months you haven't seen anything released that has interested you at all - no disrespect intended but I can't say I've found a whole hell of a lot of rips tagged with your name on them either so to complain about what others bring with them when you do not appear to be bringing much in yourself is a bit much no?

_________________"if someone who registered for 8 days have idea to make the site better.the man who registered for many years should have thoughts to make it best,except he was cut off head like as many man or weman in the site movies."

Just because someone's name isn't on a rip doesn't mean they dont rip and release, you'd be hard pushed to find a rip with my name on nowadays, but STR rips are pretty easy to find

I've been ripping and releasing for years, personally speaking I couldn't care less if anyone re-rips one of my rips, I don't care if no one knows who I am or who STR are, I rip to give a tiny bit back to a "scene" that I've been downloading from for years.

I can see where GT is coming from TBH, a minor increase in quality (~90mb more using "AFR" than a 2CD rip) doesn't justify some of the AFR releases especially not when that minor advantage is swallowed up with using AC3 sound (for example, I'm not criticising anyone's rips here )

I agree that if an "AFR" rip replaces a crappy old rip then it's justified, re-releasing films that have perfectly good rips for the sake of 90mb is a little pointless IMHO

but you also said that in the past several months you haven't seen anything released that has interested you at all

No, I said I haven't seen a lot of stuff. I apologise, some of my comments were overly aggressive, although I feel I was making a reasonable point. Diplomacy is not my strong point. There has been some rare Franco stuff for example released recently and credit to those who ripped/released it, =STR=, Dr.Phibes, Slayer and anyone I've missed out.

ODiN wrote:

I can't say I've found a whole hell of a lot of rips tagged with your name on them either so to complain about what others bring with them when you do not appear to be bringing much in yourself is a bit much no?

You will not find ANY rips tagged with my nick. However I ripped many rare nasties when I first joined this site, I chose not to tag them and I did not do the release threads myself so no point in going looking for them. Since then I have been ripping exclusively for a group and if you knew which group it was then you would know that some of the rarest titles on these boards were ripped by myself and/or my colleagues. Not blaming you for not knowing that information as I choose not to make it well known.

_________________I hate people... and they hate me!

Last edited by George Tatum on Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually it would please me greatly to see my crusty old nasties replaced with shiny new copies, I appear to have got a reputation for being precious over my rips, and maybe if I'm particularly proud of a rip then I am, but these are crappy things that I'd have thought someone would have bettered by now. Anything undersized, VCD sourced, VHS sourced if a DVD exists, PDVD or even crappy mastered DVD source then please do replace it, I'd be happy to get rid of them.

Spud, do you think this topic has degenerated into a slanging match that the boards would be better without? I do. Maybe it would be for the best to delete everything from my original comment onwards.

I agree that if an "AFR" rip replaces a crappy old rip then it's justified, re-releasing films that have perfectly good rips for the sake of 90mb is a little pointless IMHO

+1, unless its got some serious problems, i don't really see much point, your just splitting emule over two alternative files. IMO its better to have 1 dark blue file than several equal quality thinly spread files. That's the real con you could argue.

I've seen quite a few afr dupes these days and i'm not quite sure why. Sure choice is good, but in a few cases they really don't offer much difference so its just splitting the sources between two files

There's some cons to most things, but i think what afr has brought is good. I just wish the spec was a real spec, its got to the point where the keyword isn't of that much worth as it was. So afr like rips have been a god send still in my book.

On the matter of when or when not to appropriately allocate extra space to gain quality, when there's already a 1cd there's little point doing a small increment if its not flawed. You might argue that's a tad counter productive. When people are wanting a better looking ripper at a high filesize i don't see the issue. Its certainly not an abuse.

GT - sorry if I responded in any way that would make you consider asking for the thread to be closed. It's only discussion and that is all. Just more to the ongoing afr debate and whatever your opinions are it doesn't mean you aint a good guy or anything so please don't think that in any way I judged you. It's only talk and debate and I know I don't take personal offense in all this but I did want to respond as it's an interesting and relevant topic.

_________________"if someone who registered for 8 days have idea to make the site better.the man who registered for many years should have thoughts to make it best,except he was cut off head like as many man or weman in the site movies."

ODiN, you didn't offend me at all. I suggested the posts being deleted because of what I had said, I realised how insulting it was when I read it back. I edited the post above to give some more credit than I had done, and that my earlier post was wrong, because Slayer to name one is new and is bringing some good stuff. I have also released stuff to replace earlier rips, VHS with DVD, and cut with uncut.

Personally I don't see the extra res as a big deal. obviously of those that posted here I am in a minority, and if other people do see it as an issue then that's fine, as long as I'm not expected to keep the collection to this standard then no problem, I will include the rips as alternatives. IMO a lot of rips that don't look good enough at 1CD are either too long for that size, have too much fast motion to cope, are flawed on DVD and the rip highlights the flaws, or are down to poor ripping standards eg using too much bitrate for audio. But as I don't have HD I can't comment on their appearance at that spec.

But of course all the above only applies if the movie is half decent. Trash such as Friday the 13th 7 is nothing more than collection filler and surely a waste of space in anyone's book to rip at any more than the minimum spec

Seriously man GT, i don't think you've insulted anyone here. Not even a wee bit. i think it's very positive that these kinda things are being discussed. It's always good to know other people's opinions on subjects like this.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum